Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ron Paul

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Would it be better to vote for a candidate that supports views that directly affect me (taxes, socialized medicine) or a candidate that supports views that I don't really care about because they don't directly affect me [abortion (you can just go to another state to have it done!)]?

Sounds like a pragmatic approach to voting, to me and rather short ranged: the range being that of which directly affects you.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it be better to vote for a candidate that supports views that directly affect me (taxes, socialized medicine) or a candidate that supports views that I don't really care about because they don't directly affect me [abortion (you can just go to another state to have it done!)]?
It depends on what those views are based on. If you could be certain that a candidate would have minimal effect in one area and a huge effect in another, that might be a reasonable approach. Problem is, you can't. The threat of the religious state is a new kind of threat, with vast destructive potential. We already have taxes, so that's a non-distinguishing feature of candidates. Some candidates are more willing to raise more taxes in order to bring about particular social programs while other candidadates raise taxes less, but there aren't such huge differences of degree. On the other hand, laws like the Sanctity of Life act are a brave new intrusion on our freedoms. So if the new president nominates a justice who gives the 5th vote to overturn Roe, you may not care as a resident of South Dakota (hypothetically) because you can always travel to Minnesota, until it becomes a regulated federal matter that you can't, and Minnesota also outlaws abortions. The proper question is, which candidate introduces new philosophical elements into politics which are not already accepted (mal)practice, and which have far-reaching consequences for your life. Reagan is dead, dead, dead, and yet his legacy on SCOTUS lives on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a pragmatic approach to voting, to me and rather short ranged: the range being that of which directly affects you.

Shouldn't I be more concerned with things that violate my rights on a daily basis versus that which I will most likely never come into contact with? In the long range, I'm going to be paying 30% of my income (or whatever it is now) every year, I won't own allodial title to my property and thus they can tax my property and regulate just about everything I do with it, yet by the time I die, I'll most likely never have an abortion. How is it pragmatic to vote for change that benefits me most in the long run? Is my property not an extension of my life?

@David: I don't understand why the proper question is "which candidate introduces new philosophical elements into politics which are not already accepted (mal)practice, and which have far-reaching consequences for your life." Do you really think that we are at the point where we can't expect anything different, and thus should accept the current political landscape and vote only against new threats and intrusions to our rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't I be more concerned with things that violate my rights on a daily basis versus that which I will most likely never come into contact with? In the long range, I'm going to be paying 30% of my income (or whatever it is now) every year, I won't own allodial title to my property and thus they can tax my property and regulate just about everything I do with it, yet by the time I die, I'll most likely never have an abortion. How is it pragmatic to vote for change that benefits me most in the long run? Is my property not an extension of my life?

As intellectual ammo said, this is pure pragmatism. And stated the way you do it is almost a reverse prudent predator senario. In one case one justifies preying upon others based upon the prioritization of their needs. In the other case, one allows others to be preyed upon justified by the prioritization of their own defense.

Your stand on abortion highlights this most clearly. Based upon that logic, men should be indifferent to the enslavement of women's bodies because it doesn't affect them. How does your girlfriend feel about that?

I'm curious if you can find some Objectivist principle as regards voting that would justify this general strategyt stance... I'm not saying there isn't one, just curious how you come by this opinion. While I don't think one votes for an entire candidate's philosophy (and Rand said as much I believe) I also don't think one would vote simply based upon how their policies affect them directly. David is getting at a more principled approach. That is general impact (negative or positive) based upon their context within the executive. To do that then, the question has to be answered, what impacts are more general and more fundamental than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The threat of the religious state is a new kind of threat, with vast destructive potential. We already have taxes, so that's a non-distinguishing feature of candidates. Some candidates are more willing to raise more taxes in order to bring about particular social programs while other candidadates raise taxes less, but there aren't such huge differences of degree. On the other hand, laws like the Sanctity of Life act are a brave new intrusion on our freedoms. So if the new president nominates a justice who gives the 5th vote to overturn Roe, you may not care as a resident of South Dakota (hypothetically) because you can always travel to Minnesota, until it becomes a regulated federal matter that you can't, and Minnesota also outlaws abortions. The proper question is, which candidate introduces new philosophical elements into politics which are not already accepted (mal)practice, and which have far-reaching consequences for your life.

Yes! Well put, Dave. This is an approach that is not pragmatic, but one that is principled, Objectivist style.

How is it pragmatic to vote for change that benefits me most in the long run?

Because taxation isn't something new, like in what Dave was saying. If you are voting because, say you want gas prices down, or property taxes to be lowered, or whatever the case might be, I think that is pragmatic, very short sighted, and at best less principled, than voting against this newer kind of threat. And it is a threat, one that Dr. Peikoff would say is a bigger one, a worse one, more evil one, since the religious state could be projected to rise to power faster than socialism in this country, according to Dr. Peikoff, if it is not opposed to now. Voting Democrat was my only practical and moral self-defense against that. It might be short range in a sense, but definitely not pragmatic, but a principled approach to voting.

Again, we are already taxed. A percent here or there more or less, is to me, not as evil as compared to what happens or can happen when religion enters law. The government reaching its hands into the economy and pulling our earnings out is not new; but religion having the power in the government to write and pass laws and bills, is something that needs to be stopped now. The government is not supposed to have any such views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your stand on abortion highlights this most clearly. Based upon that logic, men should be indifferent to the enslavement of women's bodies because it doesn't affect them. How does your girlfriend feel about that?

I am his girlfriend, I am pro-choice, and I am one of the most active and vocal Ron Paul supporters in the area. I agree with West in that I am more interested in economic and foreign policy issues than worrying about the potential need for an abortion. I support Ron Paul's stances on issues that I consider an active, direct threat, not a potential one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am his girlfriend, I am pro-choice, and I am one of the most active and vocal Ron Paul supporters in the area. I agree with West in that I am more interested in economic and foreign policy issues than worrying about the potential need for an abortion. I support Ron Paul's stances on issues that I consider an active, direct threat, not a potential one.

direct threat to whom? If it is to you, then by all means you're correct and as much of a pragmatist as he is.

If this is your stance, then I'm sure you'll answer the questions I already posed to you here regarding RP's inability to impact the issue you think most important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As intellectual ammo said, this is pure pragmatism. And stated the way you do it is almost a reverse prudent predator senario. In one case one justifies preying upon others based upon the prioritization of their needs. In the other case, one allows others to be preyed upon justified by the prioritization of their own defense.

Hi, Kendall. I didn't see your response until after I had submitted mine, but that's a good way to look at it.

In regards to Kendall to West:

Your stand on abortion highlights this most clearly. Based upon that logic, men should be indifferent to the enslavement of women's bodies because it doesn't affect them. How does your girlfriend feel about that?

I am his girlfriend, I am pro-choice, and I am one of the most active and vocal Ron Paul supporters in the area. I agree with West in that I am more interested in economic and foreign policy issues than worrying about the potential need for an abortion. I support Ron Paul's stances on issues that I consider an active, direct threat, not a potential one.

and that just highlights it even more brightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddly enough the President has no say in any of these things. These are legislative matters. What will it mean for this candidate to "respect personal property and free-market economics" in an executive role exactly?

formal powers:

for one, the constitution says "the executive power shall be vested in the president of the USA" and that "he stall take care that the laws be faithfully executed" - for one, i want a president who respects the constitution and will care to make sure that it is respected and executed properly, not put through the socialist shredder.

most importantly VETO LEGISLATION -- imagine how many unconstitutional bills will never make it across a ron paul desk! yayy!

making treaties -- self-explanatory

commander in chief -- self explanatory (both foreign policy issues are intertwined with trade)

inherent powers:

State of the Union speeches to press for their own policy agenda, action and working with his party in Congress to pass legislation. coined by Richard Neustadst as "the power to persuade" and effect the outcome of a piece of legislation. In the words of the Washington lobbyist John Kingdon "When a president sends up a bill, it takes first place in the queue. All other bills take second place" With the help of the legislative liaison staff, the president has arm-twisting powers in congress.

executive orders, anyone? presidential directives that cary the force of law that create or modify laws and public policies without the direct approval of congress

(not as likely, but:) Congress could and have delegated powers to the executive branch in order to administer programs that address national problems

Not to mention the role of leader and helping bring into the spotlight the real issues at hand and the proper responses (ie free market solutions) to citizens through speeches and press releases, mobilizing public support for his policies, which in turn influence congressmen

sorry about the bad punctuation, im in a rush!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddly enough the President has no say in any of these things. These are legislative matters. What will it mean for this candidate to "respect personal property and free-market economics" in an executive role exactly?

Vetoing new laws, encouraging members of congress to vote according to his views.

@topic:

If the polls were in favor of the democrats I would vote for a third party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if all a Ron Paul presidency did was allow me to opt out of Social Security (which is one of his platforms), that would be worth my vote a thousand times over. or competitive sound currency? freeing socialized medicine? or auditing the federal reserve? or even just having a leader who respects personal property and free-market economics? That's worth my vote.

Athena, I'm quite familiar with the role of the president in general. I wanted you to specifically address these things:

How will Ron Paul

1. create the conditions where you can opt out of SS?

2. create a competitive sound currency?

3. free socialized medicine.

etc.

You're correct that he would be a check. But everything you've listed is a positive action. He can't do that. i.e. he can't free socialized medicine. He can only keep it from becoming less free.

Dont' worry about the spelling. I'm the king of errors due to being in a rush.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Athena, I'm quite familiar with the role of the president in general. I wanted you to specifically address these things:

How will Ron Paul

1. create the conditions where you can opt out of SS?

2. create a competitive sound currency?

3. free socialized medicine.

etc.

You're correct that he would be a check. But everything you've listed is a positive action. He can't do that. i.e. he can't free socialized medicine. He can only keep it from becoming less free.

Dont' worry about the spelling. I'm the king of errors due to being in a rush.

Unless I have been mislead by my political science professor, can't any one of those issues be dealt with through passing of appropriate bills?

If not, explain why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see my error and concede my previous argument. I guess it didn't sound pragmatic in my head, but I understand and accept your arguments after further thought. That aside, I think that the arguments I see aimed at Ron Paul would be more suitable for Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee is the absolute last person I would vote for. The reason why I see Ron Paul as being the best of the worst is because his voting record is at least based on the constitution (I don't believe religion to play a part in his system--he just wrongly defines life; it's a grave mistake, but he's not deliberately evil. Apparently it stems from his experience as a doctor and coming into contact with abortions) whereas every remaining candidates are unprincipled, pragmatic, or religious. Obama thinks the constitution is a living document and should 'change with the times', even if it violates the rights of a minority. I don't even know if Hillary knows what the constitution even is. The rest of the possible Republican candidates are just as bad, if not worse.

As far as the argument of introducing new evils goes, isn't increasing already accepted Socialist or statist views a major consideration? I would think that introducing new views is more easily opposed than widely-accepted notions that are evil. I will do some research and thinking tonight to see if constructing an argument around this is worth my time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not trying to argue that Hillary and Obama are good on foreign policy. Instead, my claim is that it is wrong to characterize them as wanting to neutralize Islamic terrorism with aid.

I heard Obama say on national television early last year he wanted to give foreign aid to Mideast Muslim countries because he thought poverty caused terrorism, and by alleviating poverty, he could reduce or eliminate terrorism. I searched the Internet but could not find his statement.

So I went to Obama's website and reviewed his foreign policy. He offers some good views but also a couple disturbing points such as wanting to offer Iran "incentives" and wanting to destroy America's nuclear arsenal:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.

Source: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy

While Ron Paul will not launch an offensive attack on Iran, he also will not offer Iran any incentives including foreign aid. Moreover, Ron Paul will not destroy America's strongest deterrent against attack: its nuclear arsenal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless I have been mislead by my political science professor, can't any one of those issues be dealt with through passing of appropriate bills?

If not, explain why.

The president doesn't pass them. He can only veto them. His clout in initiating the consideration of bills is only as strong as his networks into congress and the actual proposing of a bill that his coalition can reasonably vote for.

The accountability to create and pass legislation falls with the Congress. And congressmen live and die by their consitutency. To somehow claim that Ron Paul will give us freer medicine, or the ability to opt out of social security is to evaluate the candidate in the wrong context.

Add to that that if a Repulican majority wants to do any of these things, that RP would have as tough a time as anyone applying his veto, that it seems odd. He might be a check against a Democratic majority, but little else, and hey any Republican could be claimed to do that.

Mike Huckabee is the absolute last person I would vote for.

That I can get behind. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the RP fans, can you point to concrete promises made by him during this campaign where he vows to veto legislation of a certain character? For example, on his web page, he claims under Debt & Taxes that taxes suck (no brainer) and that spending needs to be cut (not recognized by all candidates, I think, but still hardly a major distinguishing property). But his bottom line is "We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States." Uh, yeah, so does that mean you will veto any appropriations bill that isn't strictly for the courts or national defense? I don't see him saying or really even implying that. What statement has he made declaring that any further "protections" of the environment will be vetoed by him? Where is his declaration that he will veto any national health care plan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why I see Ron Paul as being the best of the worst is because his voting record is at least based on the constitution ...

Another serious concern I have with Ron Paul is that he seems to almost have a religious devotion to the Founding Fathers and to the U.S. Constitution. Although this might not be a concern on the surface level, it seems to me like it should be of concern, because this would be another form of Subjectivism. That is, Ron Paul seems like he might support an initiative not necessarily because it is objectively right, but because the Constitution says so (at least before the Sixteenth Amendment!) or because the Founding Fathers thought it was good. Incidentally, I am interested in hearing what some of the most senior members on this board think about the validity of this observation.

Needless to say, I recognize that there is an enormous intersection between justice and much of the U.S. Constitution. An example of where this mentality of his comes into practice in concerning interpretation of the Tenth Amendment. Ron Paul repeatedly has introduced his "We the People Act" into the House. I quote from Wikipedia:

If made law, [the We the People Act] would forbid federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, unless those cases were a challenge to the constitutionality of federal law. It would also make federal court decisions on those subjects non-binding as precedent in state courts, and would prohibit federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments.

What this means in practice is that Ron Paul is not a consistent proponent of individual rights. According to Ron Paul, women do not necessarily have a right to an abortion since he thinks it should be legal for a state government to ban abortion rights. Needless to say, the same reasoning applies for his inclusion of civil unions and sexual practices (14 states still outlaw oral sex) in the bill.

EDIT: The fact that the full text of the bill also explicitly forbids the federal courts strike down local laws on "religious liberty" seems to prevent Federal courts from hearing cases where plaintiffs claim that local laws outlaw their freedom of religion. "Education" is also included in the forbidden list. Does this imply that if a state supreme court rules that it is acceptable for all children to attend the public school that teaches creationism instead of evolution, then a federal court could not hear an appeal? It looks like it.

END EDIT

Anyway, I doubt that any of the other Republicans are better on these issues, but it should still be of concern to anyone sympathetic to the Objectivist view on individual rights.

... whereas every remaining candidates are unprincipled, pragmatic, or religious.

Ron Paul is definitely religious but I do not think that is in dispute. Moreover, in my opinion, I believe that the fact that Ron Paul is principled makes him worse than many of the Democrats on foreign policy, as articulated here.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else catch him on Leno?

They mostly talked about why he had been snubbed rather than his individual viewpoints and opinions, but it's major publicity for him that will hopefully incite people (namely those from NH) to look him up online.

The whole thing seemed very mysterious, if I had no idea who Ron Paul was I would definitely do some research since the show focused on how he had been denied a spot on the debate because the mass media was afraid of the truth getting out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We need to think about why terrorists do what they do, and whether or not we'd be happy if they did it to us."

I agree with you Laszlo that the second half of this statement is irrational. It implies that justification is relative and everyone should be left alone for the sake of nonviolence, which isn't actually a solution. If this were his only opinion on the issue, I'd say he doesn't know what he's talking about. But to a greater extent he argues that our intervention in the middle east is not in our interest--that we have done and are doing more damage to ourselves than good by maintaining the war.

can you please supply sources of where Ron Paul indicates that such attacks against the U.S. are irrational and illegitimate?

[...]

Ron Paul does not acknowledge Islamic Totalitarianism as a threat in general and in particular he does not see Iran, an Islamic Republic that is known for providing military, political, spiritual and financial support for Islamic terrorism, as a concern. So long as he does this, his evasions give sanction, as he does not cast the proper judgment towards the enemies of the United States.

Actually, I was not able to find any, which is surprising to me. So my statement that he "always stipulates that these actions are irrational" was false, because there are many interviews with him where he discusses the Iraq/Iran situation without saying whether Islamic fundamentalists are justified or not. The closest he comes is "we don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics," in Laszlo's link, which is not the same thing. Its very possible that it may be out there in any of the many videos which I can't sit through, but indeed, it is distressing that I can't find him addressing the illegitimacy of fundamentalist attacks easily.

In this article he actually discusses the apparent "reason" and "logic" behind suicide attacks, but from a causal, not a moral perspective. Contrary to what I had assumed, he seems to have voiced no opinion whatsoever on the rationality/legitimacy of Islamic Fundamentalist or terrorist reactions in Iraq. But if I understand Objectivist ethics correctly, isn't this the sanction he gives them? (As opposed to not considering it a "threat" or "concern." One can acknowledge irrationality in something and also find that its particular consequences given the context are of no immediate concern, no? The sanction would be in ignoring the fact that that irrationality exists.)

But he's garnered the support of a lot of people who do have empathy for Islamic militants

Just because people agree in terms of what should be done does not mean they agree in why those things should be done. That's like saying there's a problem with Ayn Rand because a particular religious church agrees with her assertion that one should not engage sexually with another unless they are absolutely sincere.

For the RP fans, can you point to concrete promises made by him during this campaign where he vows to veto legislation of a certain character? For example, on his web page, he claims under Debt & Taxes that taxes suck (no brainer) and that spending needs to be cut (not recognized by all candidates, I think, but still hardly a major distinguishing property). But his bottom line is "We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States." Uh, yeah, so does that mean you will veto any appropriations bill that isn't strictly for the courts or national defense? I don't see him saying or really even implying that. What statement has he made declaring that any further "protections" of the environment will be vetoed by him? Where is his declaration that he will veto any national health care plan?

I would suggest watching

interview. He does not state explicitly, "If put in front of me, I will veto this type of bill," but he does discuss the issues you mention and what he could do about them, including the employment of presidential vetoes. It is an hour long (the links to the other parts are on the side), but he is able to talk to a much greater extent than his time allotments in the debates have allowed him. Given his responses, I would be surprised if his answer to the point blank question "Will you veto any kind of socialized national health care plan" was anything other than "Of course." It is certainly implied.

I think you make a good point, DarkWaters, about the potential constitution-over-objectivity problem Paul might have, although it is possible that he has personally evaluated the constitution and come to the conclusion that he agrees with it based on his own judgment. I believe many of his economic stances, for example, he holds because he developed a particular interest in and understanding of that field, outside of the constitution (see video posted).

Your point on the We the People act is taken, but it still seems to me that compared to the rest of the candidates, his defense of liberty (individual and economic) is superior to everyone else's.

You say that the fact that he's principled makes him worse regarding foreign policy, stating "Ron Paul would not wage a war against Islamic Fundamentalism on principle." But what principle would it take to wage a war on an idea? Wouldn't it have to be an ideological battle that is waged, not a military one? Wouldn't the best method for fighting it be to lead by example, to give countries a taste of what they could have or accomplish by employing rational principles--not occupying them and turning them it into a nations of poverty?

Can't ideas like those of Islamic Fundamentalism only be defeated by the gradual acknowledgment of superior ideas? The war is killing Islamic Fundamentalists, but as far as can be ascertained, is it not fanning the flames of Islamic Fundamentalism?

Has this gradually morphed into another Ron Paul thread?... :lol:

Edited by cilphex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else catch him on Leno?
Yes, I did. I think Paul did as best he could in that slot. The typical American audience likes to hear the "Get government out of my life" message, as long as it stays at that level of abstraction. The problem comes when one asks "well, whatwill you do about problem X". That's when the libertarian position starts to grate. One saw that in the Leno interview too. The audience cheered the idea that Ron Paul should have had a chance to debate, based on his 10% Iowa number; and, the audience cheered his message of small government; but, when he got a little more specific on the middle-East, the audience was far less sympathetic.

Inadvertently, Fox ended up doing Ron Paul a favor, since it resulted in his appearance on Leno. My guess is that -- on average -- the Fox-debate audience has made up its mind about Paul, more than has the Leno audience.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't ideas like those of Islamic Fundamentalism only be defeated by the gradual acknowledgment of superior ideas? The war is killing Islamic Fundamentalists, but as far as can be ascertained, is it not fanning the flames of Islamic Fundamentalism?

Has this gradually morphed into another Ron Paul thread?... :lol:

Ultimately, the ideas can only be defeated by superior ideas, but that doesn't mean that the physical manifestation of those ideas can only be defeated by superior ideas. We need not convert the Islamic world to reason, but a real war, a war conducted like WWII would show Islamic totalitarian states that the ideas they hold lead to their own destruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately, the ideas can only be defeated by superior ideas, but that doesn't mean that the physical manifestation of those ideas can only be defeated by superior ideas. We need not convert the Islamic world to reason, but a real war, a war conducted like WWII would show Islamic totalitarian states that the ideas they hold lead to their own destruction.

This is an absurd statement.

Firstly, the physical manifestations of a poorly conceived idea cannot ultimately be defeated unless the underlying idea is defeated by a superior idea. Nazism was officially defeated in WWII. But I can easily show you neo-nazi groups all over the globe who regard Mein Kampf as their Bible and Hitler as their prophet. In America the Nazi ideas still exist, and they manifests themselves in the form of white supremacy groups such as the KKK, and political groups such as the American Nazi Party (remember George Lincoln Rockwell?). Moreover, all religious groups (including Islam) throughout history have suffered serious defeats in battle or war and have managed to survive, because the ideas were not defeated.

Secondly, there is no need to "show" such states that the ideas they hold will lead to their own destruction. That is, unless you are willing to submit to me that irrationality will work. I am not willing to make that statement, because I regard it to be false. If the ideas behind a 'state' are irrational, then that state will last only so long as a seperate 'rational state' is willing to lend it support, through either direct or indirect means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...